|
Alright, my apologies for the tone of my last post as well.
I actually do not think we are all that far apart on this.
My point was, that generally one would be an "intellectual," if one is somewhat well-rounded, as opposed to being a narrow specialist. Again, someone being a good attorney, or a good accountant, or a good banker, does not necessarily mean that the person is erudite. In fact, a large portion of such professionals are not.
Of course, breadth of reading/viewing habits is generally a great thing. Very narrow focus of reading, even if voluminous, results in often limited intellectual development. There are those who dedicate their lives to reading and studying "holy" books, and most outside their particular circle of faithful would not consider them "intellectuals," or very bright for that matter.
But, at the same time, reading varied junk is not the same as reading varied good stuff. Most people who have a developed taste, have started reading better literature usually when relatively young, and usually with guidance. It is unlikely, that at some point they will dedicate themselves to reading and rereading the full works of Clive Cussler.
My main point is, that one needs to be aware of "good" and "bad" writing, as it applies to literature, philosophy, history, scientific treatises, etc., so that one can differentiate between the worthy and the junk.
More often than not, the process of learning to differentiate begins early on in life, most often with literature.
That's all. Not trying to offend, or "bash" anyone.
|